Jump to content

Hillsborough Disaster - What exactly is this Justice for the '96?


Recommended Posts

The Hilsborough Justice Campaign website states



Twenty long years have passed since the avoidable and totally unnecessary death of 96 Liverpool fans ? and still no justice.


And my question is, what would make them rest easy, what exactly would "justce" be?


Please don't anyone think I am unsympathetic, the disaster was a terrible terrble thing, and evidence shows that it was avoidable, and big mistakes were made. But, what would make them happy?


Aims and Objectives of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign


The Hillsborough Justice Campaign was formed in response to the belief of a substantial number of people who were involved in the disaster, that after more than nine years and having many judicial decisions ruled against them, a fresh approach was needed in the fight to achieve proper Justice. The Constitution of the membership is reflected in the Group's name and it follows that the Organisation is broad-based.


1) To pursue Justice for those 96 people who died in the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster of 1989, the bereaved Families, the Survivors who came perilously close to dying in Pens 3 and 4 and those unfortunate people still suffering from the ensuing trauma of the Disaster.


(2) To recruit members to the Organisation for the purpose of raising support for the Justice Campaign


(3) To raise funds for the furtherance of the Justice Campaign



That answers nothing, again, just this call for "justice".


My concern is that they want someone to put their hand up and say "yeah, I caused that that day, and should spend the rest of my life locked up". Would that bring anyone back, or even offer real comfort? I doubt it.


I just don't get the whole thing. I get the hurt, the craving for the truth and all that, but at the end of the day, I believe it was just a bag of errors, that I am sure a lot of people feel horrifically guilty about to this day, but that could have happened at any ground any time back then.


Does this make me less of a Liverpool fan? Does this make me insensitive?


I personally don't think so. I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for everyone effected by that day 20 years ago, but I frankly think they'd be happier people if they could let it go, as I don't think even they know what it is they're really chasing after.

I'm kind of with you Keef.

There were so many factors in to the awful events of that day, and perhaps in a perfect world there may be personal liabilities that could be identified, but it mostly seems to me they were large scale organisational mistakes.


There clearly were lessons to be learnt and changes to be made across a broad spectrum of organisations and personal behaviours and things have improved. I'd say to the point where stadiums needn't be all-seater anymore.


Often following any sort of tragedy there's a cry for answers and blame. Some of it must help the grieving process and there may be some catharsis involved also. But there isn't always someone (specifically) to blame, sadly bad things happen.

Was the Herald of Free Enterprise commercial liability or did experienced sailors just make a mistake with tragic consequences?


But I can't help feeling that the search for answers or blame can often be counter-productive, and two decades down the line nobbling a copper who misguidedly turned away an ambulance, I can't believe will do anyone any good, and as you say, it won't bring anybody back.


But thank god this has never happened again, at least not in this country.

It's not about blame. It's about "The Truth" and a cover up that blamed Liverpool fans when people who should have just put their hands up and said they got it wrong. Our fans were smeared that day and I'm sick of being called a murderer by people who believe the scummy lies that were in the press. It's atrocious.


People should read this


Why were ambulances not allowed on to the pitch? Why was there a 3.15pm cut off time for the inquest when people could have clearly been resucitated after that? A HUGE COVER UP.


I'm not going in to this today. Bad, bad timing.

I'm with you. When Railtrack decided that injury and death compensation was cheaper than an expensive new signalling system installed at Paddington prior to that accident thanks to the notorious signal that had been passed 8 times, then someone should have gone to prison.


I just think there's a difference between that and a tragedy due to a whole series of fuck-ups, and poor responses to it.

That should be for a court to decide however I guess, rather than my opinion or a inquiry/whitewash.

If one of your loved ones died and could have been saved, would you not want to know why?


Read Anne Williams' story about her son Kevin and don't tell me you can't empathise with her and that this whole terrible tragedy does not make you livid.


I have this book if anyone feels they should borrow and read it.

I think today is perfect timing but there you go, and I'm not trying to upset anyone Anna, but again, it's still not clear what the hell "justice" is.


The ambulances not being allowed on to the pitch for example, was a massive problem, no doubt, but the driver who was allowed on (who's name escapes me) said this weekend, that as he drove on, a Police Officer said to him "they're still fighting". This is not an attack on Liverpool fans specifically, you can't blame people for suspecting hooliganism back then!


As for the lies in the press, that is a seperate issue, and yes a nasty nasty one. On that front, I think a full apology even 20 years later would be some sort of Justice.


Regarding a police cover up, I am sure things were made to look like they wanted them to look like, 70s & 80s, just ask the Guildford 4. My question was quite simply, what would give peace to the people campaigning, what would satisfy them?


That's all I'm asking, I'm not trying to take a side.


As snorky said, it's very emotive, which is why it's hard to have a discussion about it.

Well that account didn't make me livid, just sad.


I can empathise with her her sorrow, if she's angry then I can't empathise with that.


I can see how he died, because of crush injuries sustained at a football match.


I can't see who the poor lady wants to attack.

It seems to me lots was done to try and save her son.


What else could have been done in that environment, in that historical context, with training measures that had been put in place at that time?


Everyone learned and are still learning lessons, but they hadn't done that before that event - it took the event to teach them.

Criminal negligence


No apology...


No disciplinary action (as the original Taylor report recommended)


An inquiry by West Midlands police


Revolting lies by a national newspaper, which I regularly hear and see repeated on football forums


I can see why it still hurts all of the victims families and they don't let it go

I'm starting to regret starting this.


Okay, I can understand them wanting "the truth", what happened after 3:15 and all that. I still don't really see what difference it would make, but then I'm not her, or anyone else involved.


I just can't help thinking they want someone held accountable, and frankly I don't think that is fair. Imagine you were a 25 year old police officer on that day. Chaos is breaking out everywhere, people are screaming, an ambulance arrives, you don't know what to do, you send it around the corner...


20 years later, at 45, you know with hindsight, that had you let that ambulance through, a life or 2 may have been saved. I'd imagine you'd feel pretty horrible about it. Question is, do you deserve to be hauled in front of a court and punished?

Yes Keef, people should be held accountable. Not necessarily individual police offers from that day, but those who were supposedly in control.


I wish you hadn't started this. Today is emotive enough without having to go in to things. I don't want to post in here, I don't even want to talk about it but I feel compelled to.

I don't know why you find this so upsetting, I can only hope it's not through personal loss. I apologise for bringing it up. It was just a genuine question that had been bugging me for days having watched and listened to many interviews, and heard stories I'd heard before.


I don't think that anyone on here thinks it's any less tragic than even the biggest Liverpool fan though.

This will likely be my last post on this, as I don't want to cause upset, but just thought that this video (at the top of the story) was interesting, as I'd never really heard anything from this man.


18 minute interview with Stefan Popper, the coroner.

>>Annasfiedl - not sure of your age or background, but do you have any idea , first hand( not based on B&W white films etc ) >>what attending a football game was like in those days ?<<


I several times stood at the Leppings Lane of Hillsborough when young to watch Sheffield derby games. Even on crutches aged 12 (with my father) I stood there and had a great time. And the supporters weren't even segregated then.


In the 70's and 80's Hillsborough was a regular venue for FA Cup semi finals and was always full. What people who attended would always tell you was how clueless the police were. When the disaster occurred the immediate reaction from people who had attended previous semi-finals there was a strong suspicion that police incompetence would be a major factor, and the more we learned, the more this suspicion became justified.


Bradford was caused by a fire and was totally different.


I am not a Liverpool supporter but given the reactions from certain parts of the Media afterwards - in particular the indescribably loathsome outpourings from the "Sun" - I am really not at all surprised that a deep sense of injustice still lingers on Merseyside.

as keef asks what exactly is the justice they are after, is it to have someone held accountable and locked up, its that going to solve any issues, is it going to make anyone feel happier. are there financial motives. it perhaps time to remember those that died, but move on what happened, happened and should never be forgotten, but perhaps the biggest tribute and sign of justice for those who died, is that at least in this country it will never happen again, the recommdations of the taylor report have seen to that. i find it all comparable to the bloody sunday enquiry, both tragic events but there has to come a time when you have to move on.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...